Earl Aelfheah

Not just about weight (although that is a big factor), but also the high bonnet. An SUV / suv cross with a high bonnet is about twice as likely to kill a pedestrian in a collision as a similar sized saloon car. 8 times more likely to kill a child. They're designed in a way that causes significantly more upper body and head injuries, which is typically what leads to serious injury and death. It's equivalent to being shot in the leg, or shot in the heart / head. Neither is good, but your more likely to survive one over the other. There is no good reason for it, except marketing / fashion and there are some very negative impacts. This is a complete misunderstanding of the statistics. That isn't because they are more dangerous cars, but because there are more of them / they are more popular (for now). The growth in SUVs / SUV cross vehicles however has been exponential, and they are considerably more dangerous. So it is a legitimate concern. Also, the growth in the number of 4X4 off road vehicles in London is unbelievable. I don't want cars which have been designed to easily leave the road and career through any obstacle in a built up area. Look at what happened in Wimbledon. I have never heard anyone explain why it's desirable in any way to have bigger, heavier, higher fronted vehicles in London.

Fundamentally, ever bigger, heavier, higher fronted, off road vehicles should not be welcomed in a built up area. We should insist on stricter safety standards / regulation. It isn't that long ago that we laughed at US drivers for taking these ridiculous vehicles everywhere, inevitably, car companies have managed to sell the same damaging illusion of SUVs as offering 'freedom' to many in the UK.

That's interesting (albeit a decade old now), do you have a link? I'm surprised there are so many people travelling from Lee? When they've got Blackheath and Greenwich much closer. All those other areas are a short walk or bus trip away. [edited to add] found the report here https://www.southwark.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2024-09/lsbu_high_street_report_-_lordship_lane_high_street.pdf It also says that 90% of those shopping on the lane live and / or work locally. The customer base is "predominantly local, shopping little & often". I wonder whether there are any plans to repeat this exercise. I suspect that the number of people driving to the lane has significantly reduced over the last decade, but would be interesting to see some more recent data.

@geh thanks for posting the thread. Clearly the original statement about 'schemes in the last year' (or however it was worded) was not straight forward. I think the later response is more honest (although they should acknowledge that it contradicts the previous, misleading statement by their collegue). That said, I'm not convinced that there are a lot of people driving to Lordship lane and parking on the side streets to the west of it. There are very few (if any) free spaces there. For businesses who need to travel in by car, the provision of business permits may well help ensure they can actually park. Personally, I would like to see some loading bays and some disabled bays and little else. There are regular buses down the lane, very limited parking and unless you're collecting something heavy, or have mobility issues, it's better for people to use the bus. What would help businesses (and traffic flow generally), would be to speed buses up by making the bus lane down lordship lane 24 hours.

I'm not going to discuss this here, because it's irrelevant to the thread as I've said several times now. Suffice to say that you've done exactly what you always do. Gone looking for information you can cherry pick to 'prove' something you've already concluded, rather than seeking to genuinely understand.

Minor incidents involving all vehicles go unreported. And you can't report on unreported incidents. What is your point, that bicycle collisions are causing carnage, whilst also being too minor to report? It's logically incoherent and ultimately just an argument for ignoring the data and relying on speculation and prejudice. Usage isn't dropping. And what is the problem you think may be resolving itself? Bike use?

Nope. As a member of the public you do not have to fill out a STATS19 form. If you report an incident to the police, it's recorded by the police. You are wrong. What, a comparison between reported collisions and injuries involving different vehicles? That is like for like. You seem to think I should compare unrecorded incidents and recorded incidents? Using telepathy and / or magic? What are you talking about? No misleading use of a dataset. It's just called using a dataset. Also known as rationale evidenced discussion. As opposed to speculation, anecdote and prejudice. Again, this is irrelevant to the thread.

The police record any incidents that are reported to them. Again, I am not sure how you think incidents should be recorded where they're not reported. Good to see that you've seamlessly moved from claiming there is no data, to trying to undermine the data, but at no point actually reviewing or engaging with the data. A repeated pattern. It's almost as though you're just interested in proving a preconceived conclusion. Again, irrelevant to the thread.

So would I, but it shouldn't be necessary to do this to feel safe.

Because it’s culture war stuff. I don’t think people should be able to spread misinformation and nonsense, constantly doubling down and deflecting when corrected on matters of fact. I don’t want this section of the forum to just be a version of one persons monomaniacal ‘X’ feed. You must have felt the difference across this section recently. You know what has changed.

Yeh, let’s call it ‘a draw’, as if there are ‘sides’ in every discussion about roads and transport and no facts. Because what we don’t want is genuine, good faith discussion. Personally I’m a bit bored of this part of the forum being used to spread conspiracies and misinformation by a divisive, monomaniac, obsessed with ‘winning’ what they wrongly see as an ongoing battle of ‘bike vs car’, regardless of what’s actually being discussed. It’s made any reasoned debate of issues around roads and transport unbelievably tedious. So let’s paper over the fact that someone has got everything entirely wrong, wilfully ignoring basic facts. Nothing to see here.

I’ve personally found them much better lately

I don't really care. I've said before, I don't think consultations are the best way to get useful feedback, or canvas opinion, but at least this scheme addressed a very clear problem that was a concern for many people locally. The key point is that the changes which followed successfully reduced speeds and collisions in a former accident hotspot. Apparently you don't object to the road being narrowed, or that the design includes a bike lane, but are exercised by a conspiracy theory, born of a 'revelation' that was nothing of the sort, and a misreading of a table? By your own admittance this isn't about a successful traffic calming scheme. I don't believe it’s anything to do with a consultation that you're suddenly 'concerned' about 5 years after it closed either.

Where? Their website says that cycling in Southwark is fifth highest (with Hackney 1st), and higher than inner London average. Literally on the landing page as one of the highlighted news stories. This absolute nonsense. 123 responses. 36 said they 'did not support'. But I wasn't talking about the consultation. I said: They did. And I find it remarkable that you would argue otherwise. This conspiracy theory nonsense is beyond tedious. It was 5 years ago. You say you object to 'lobby groups' 'manipulating' the consultation that led to the scheme (no evidence btw). But you supported the scheme at the time and apparently you support it now? I mean, seriously?

No. Malumbu said about the bike lane: Anyone who knows about that scheme understood what he meant. That the scheme was about narrowing the road to deter speed. Not that a bike lane was put in to slow traffic. But of course first mate thought he'd uncovered something: ...and then: You, jumped on this, even though it was pointed out that the scheme was always explicitly about addressing speeding in what was an accident hotspot (for the love of God read the TMO!) and the inclusion of a bike lane a secondary benefit / design decision. ....and that is how we got into this whole tedious conspiracy thread. With you immediately searching out information you could use to 'prove' your conclusion (that there was somehow a shadowy 'cycle elite' behind it all), landing on a misinterpretation of a single table in summary document. In other words, conspiracy theory, cherry picking, refusal to reflect, or correct mistakes when they're pointed out, the 'just asking questions' avoidance and deflection. It is very, very boring. So, if this whole thread is really about an objection you have to: and not the road layout, the cycle lane, or anything else, I would just say this: Local people overwhelmingly supported efforts to slow traffic. The scheme was successful. You've offered zero evidence of manipulation and to suggest that the scheme was about a bicycle lane is wrong (and apparently you don't want it removed anyway). Thanks for the good times. 🤣

I understand how you've interpreted it, but you've interpreted it incorrectly. They talk about consulting with residents of Sydenham Hill Road, both Southwark residents and Lewisham residents. Sydenham Hill is literally the border between the two - one side in Southwark, the other, Lewisham. It's why the categories are 'Southwark residents', 'Lewisham residents' and 'Not resident of Sydenham hill or surrounding road'. Again, this is the result of your fundamental misunderstanding of the context, and refusal to read the TMO. There was a question about ones support for the scheme and then questions about design options. There was overwhelming support for narrowing the road and slowing vehicles which regularly drove along that road at speed. The fact that those living on the road had more interest in the detail of the design (parking, positions of crossings etc.), is not remotely surprising. But they still supported the scheme itself. Only 26 people were against narrowing the road. Again, I would simply ask what it is you're railing against? Do you want to road widened again? Do you want it kept as it is, but the bike lane removed? And if so, for what purpose? 100%. Never knowingly answers a direct question.

You've misinterpreted the data. The reference to 'Southwark resident' and 'Lewisham resident' refers to those living (resident) on Sydenham hill or a surrounding road... Those on the Southwark side and those on the Lewisham side (the road divides the two boroughs). I've already pointed this out to you. The rest of the responses are those who are not resident of Sydenham hill or a surrounding road (people from East Dulwich who responded to the consultation for example; People like you, who said at the time, that you supported it). There is no 'odd distribution'. The majority of those living on the road, as well as those from further afield, supported the change. Only 26 people living on the road objected. As for the cost - deciding to include a bike lane using wands, was probably cheaper than excluding it and just narrowing the road using hard landscaping. You have (wilfully?) misunderstood everything about the scheme from it's purpose (read the TMO), to the consultation responses. And you seem completely uninterested in the schemes actual (positive) impact. Just bizarre. Again, I would simply ask what it is you're actually railing against? Do you want to road widened? Do you want cars to regularly break the speed limit along that road again? Do you want it kept as it is, but the bike lane removed? And if so, for what purpose? …from this and many of your other posts, it does appear that you’re just against cycling infrastructure per se.

Do you really not understand this. A bike lane was not introduced to slow traffic. Sydenham Hill was identified as one of the top 10 roads in the borough that saw regular speeding. It was also identified as an accident hotspot. So it was decided that traffic calming measures were needed which included road narrowing. The consultation was on the design and one option was the inclusion of a bike lane which the road narrowing made possible. The inclusion of a bike lane was widely supported (why would it not be?), but without it, the road would still have been narrowed. This is not the same as a bike lane being used to slow traffic. It’s a completely topsy turvey misinterpretation of the nature of the scheme. If you still don’t get this. If you still haven’t read the TMO (which you were pointed towards right at the start), then I can’t help you. Again, I would just ask what it is you're actually railing against? Do you want to road widened? Do you want cars to regularly break the speed limit along that road again? Do you want it kept as it is, but the bike lane removed? And if so, for what purpose?

This is all just noise. There is no conspiracy. The bike lane was not the point of the scheme (read the TMO). It was intended to slow traffic on a stretch of road which had a problem with speeding. The design could have included a bike lane or not - but the road would still have been narrowed to control speed. Those who took part in the consultation overwhelmingly supported the inclusion of a bike lane in the design. Are people arguing that they'd rather the road had been narrowed but a bike lane excluded? For what purpose? Just because 'grrr, bikes'? This whole thread was started because one person knee jerked to a misunderstanding about the nature of the scheme; wrongly thinking they'd uncovered some new fact (that the council were 'using bike lanes to slow traffic') and that this pointed to a conspiracy. They've got it so back to front it's laughable. And of course, wrongly thinking they'd uncovered something, they set about looking for 'evidence' to 'prove' their conclusion, completely misinterpreting / misrepresenting some cherry picked data, as usual. So a thread about nothing, based on conspiracy thinking, confirmation bias, and a monomaniacal obsession. It's boring, and pointless. I would just ask what it is you're actually railing against? Do you want to road widened? Do you want it kept as it is, but the bike lane removed? And for what purpose?

@Earl Aelfheah please correct this as I have not said this. To be clear that quote 'a cycle lane was installed to control driving speeds' is a quote from first mate. I pointed out that you took that notion as confirmation of a conspiracy. You did. You said in response: And then: You then started this thread and started spouting nonsense about an imagined conspiracy based on several misunderstandings / misinterpretations. The main misunderstanding (which was actually pointed out to you before you started this thread, but which you chose to ignore), is laid bare in the TMO - the scheme was not about installing a cycle lane to control driving speeds. It wasn't 'dressed up as slowing traffic'. So don't pretend that I owe you an apology. You're words are recorded. The deflection, the attempts at misdirection, don't work. You’ve ‘uncovered’ nothing. A scheme to reduce speeding was bought in half a decade ago with broad support and has proven itself a success. The rest is just tin foil hat nonsense.

Yup. Read it all back. 🙄 Honestly, this whole thread is just beyond parody. You’ve ‘uncovered’ nothing. A scheme to reduce speeding was bought in half a decade ago with broad support and has proven itself a success. And you’re suddenly scrabbling around looking for a reason to moan about cyclists?? …as always

I never quoted you as saying it. I quoted first mate and said that you had taken his notion as proof of a conspiracy. This is demonstrably true. You seem to forget that your words are recorded and can be referred back to. 🤣 There was no conspiracy. There was support at the time for the scheme (including from you) and it was successful in reducing speeds and collisions. The rest is just tin foil hat and the usual noise.

Again, of those living on Sydenham Hill, or the surrounding roads and who responded to the consultation: 23 supported with no change and 24 supported but suggested some changes (and changes were made to the scheme based on the feedback, for example the location of crossings, parking etc). Only 26 respondents did not support the scheme at all. Across the rest of the responses (from 'those not resident of Sydenham Hill or surrounding road'), there was overwhelming support for the scheme (31 for, just 3 against) For you to suggest that 26 people are the majority opinion expressed and then claim that there is spin going on is wild. Maybe not, but when you say that every Mayor of London, the Heads of GLC, London County Council "hate all drivers" it doesn't sounds a calm and rationale view to hold. @Earl Aelfheah please correct this as I have not said this. I said the central pedestrian refuge was being removed to accommodate a cycle lane/cycle advance stop In response to this: You said: ....and You then started this thread. So I think it's entirely fair to say that you accepted first mates statement that the cycles lane was installed to control driving speeds. And it is very clear that you think there has been a conspiracy, when you talk about manipulation of consultation data by 'cycle lobby groups to give the mandate the council needed'. You've provided zero evidence of this. This is nonsense. I'm questioning why a scheme you supported at the time, you suddenly now object to 5 years later. That is quite odd. I have laid out exactly why I think you've done this - it's based on a misunderstanding of the objectives of the scheme, leading to a belief you have uncovered a conspiracy and then your misinterpreting a table to fit the narrative. To liken a well supported and successful road safety scheme to the Post Office scandal is beyond bizarre.

OK. perhaps it's fairer to simply ask why he is exercised about a change made 5 years ago, and which he previously supported, at this time. I mean I think we can see. You suggested on the ‘South circular works’ thread, that ‘a cycle lane was installed on Sydenham Hill to control driving speeds’. This is not correct, as immediately pointed out by other posters on that thread. The changes to Sydenham Hill were to address a problem with speeding, narrowing the road, to slow traffic. The space that was to be created by this, opened up the option of including a bike lane, but this was a design choice. This is clear in the TMO – a fact was pointed out more than once. An alternative would have been to narrow the road and not create a bike lane. The public consultation showed strong support for including a bike lane in the design. For some reason, this was ignored, and Rockets took the (back to front and readily disproven) notion that ‘a cycle lane was installed to control driving speeds’ as confirmation of a conspiracy. He then declared that he would rapidly create a thread to discuss this conspiracy, and set about looking for ‘evidence’ to support the conclusion already reached. From what I can tell, the ‘evidence’ uncovered comes in two forms: An organisation that represents some London cyclists were consulted on designs which included a cycle lane A mis-interpretation of a table, which split results into residents of Sydenham Hill (and immediate roads off of it), categorised by which side of the road the responses come from (the Southwark side or the Lewisham side), and other responses from further afield / the wider area. The objection appears to be that support was stronger in the second group, which have been taken as proving widespread interference in a public consultation by lobby groups / activists / malign actors. Linked to this, is the fact that LCC encouraged any London cyclists with an interest in the creation of a bike lane as part of the design, respond to a public consultation. In all of this, there are two key points that both of you seem blind to: support for the scheme existed across both groups, and 5 years later we can actually assess the success of the scheme in slowing vehicles and reducing collisions; it has worked.

Yes, that's right, of those living on Sydenham Hill, or the surrounding roads and who responded to the consultation: 23 supported with no change and 24 supported but suggested some changes (and changes were made to the scheme based on the feedback, for example the location of crossings, parking etc). Only 26 respondents did not support the scheme at all. Across the rest of the responses (from 'those not resident of Sydenham Hill or surrounding road'), there was overwhelming support for the scheme. You yourself supported the scheme at the time. The changes were designed to address speeding in what was an accident hotspot, and have since proved successful in that aim. So again why, 5 years on, how have you decided you’re angry about it?